Nazianzeni querela et votum justum, The fundamentals of the hierarchy examin'd and disprov'd wherein the choicest arguments and defences of ... A.M. ... the author of An enquiry into the new opinions (chiefly) propagated by the Presbyterians in Scotland, the author of The fundamental charter of presbytry, examin'd & disprov'd, and ... the plea they bring from Ignatius's epistles more narrowly discuss'd.../ by William Jameson.

Section III.

The second Hypothesis, viz. that the Antiquity of the trne Ignatius could not secure him from all Lapses or Escapes in Doctrine or serve to Prove that there was no Declen∣sion in his time.

MY second Assertion is, that the Antiquity even of the true Ignati∣us was not able to secure him from all Lapses and Mistakes, and that in his time some Churches not only might; but actually were itch∣ing after several Novelties. Which Assertion, if once demonstrated, renders Ignatius of little or no use to our Antagonists: their Inference is, that, if Ignatius spoke positively in favours of Episcopacy, and lived in a closs vicinity to the Apostles, then there's no doubt but the Apostles e∣stablished such a Government: which consequence, like the Aples of Sodom, resolves anon into smoake, our Assertion being prov'd; which I now come to demonstrate. The Apostles of our Lord had not chang'd their earthly Tabernacle, for that which is not made with hands; when, to their inexpressible sorrow, they beheld not only particular Persons, but even the greater part of some Churches, they themselves had either planted or watered, in stead of Grapes, to bring forth will Grapes, and in place of being the Repositories of the precious Truths of the Gospel, become nests and cages of the most abominable Errors. Other Chur∣ches there were that holding fast the Foundation of the Apostolick Do∣ctrine, but raising thereupon a structure of the stubble and hay of either Judaism or Paganism (in one of which all of them had been educated) had well nigh made up an Edifice of most Hetrogeneous Materials. Hence it is that the Apostle is at such pains to Correct them in their A∣buses of the Sacrament, in their Superstition concerning Meat and Drink, and their unwarrantable observation of Times, that wanted all Divine Sanction.

§. 2. But these infallible Guides being at length possessed of their Master's Joy, Affairs grew yet worse: for then the grand Enemy of the

Church did in greater abundance; and with more security sow his tares. Hence it was that not only those, who are justly branded for Arch-He∣reticks, and Schismaticks; but even those who persisted Orthodox in the main Principles of Christianity were drawn into, neither few nor in∣considerable Mistakes.

§. 3. I'm sure Papias Bishop of Hierapolis was a Man, both in respect of his Antiquity and Authority, among the primitive Christians, little inferiour to Ignatius: 'twas he notwithstanding who either greedily imbrac'd, or first of all hatch'd the gross Fancy of the Saints their cor∣poral Kingdom for a thousand years after the Resurrection. Moreo∣ver (saith Eusebiusd 1.1 speaking of Papias) the same Writer alledges something as from unwritten Tradition, viz. some strange Parables and Do∣ctrines of our Saviour, and some other fabulous things; and, amongst the rest, he saith that after the Resurrection, there shall be a thousand years, wherein Christ shall reign on Earth bodily. But to me he seems through misunderstan∣ding of the Apostle's Discourse, to have taken what was spoken mysteriously, in a quite other sense from its true meaning. For he was os a very weak Judgement; as his Writings sufficiently declare. He was notwithstanding the Author of this Opinion to the most part of the following Ecclesiastical Writers, for they look'd only to his Antiquity as Irenaeus, and whosoever else favoured his Opini∣on. We see here a Man of no little Antiquity and Repute drawing the greatest Lights of the Church, and consequently the rest of the Christi∣ans to a Doctrine destitute of all countenance from the Word of God.

§. 4. Another Conceit no less Ancient but more wild, was that of the Angels their carnal Knowledge of Women. This was hugg'd by Justin Martyre 1.2 who lived in the same Century with, yea, and not many years after Ignatius. The Angels (saith he) transgressing their Order, by carnal Copulation with Women, fell from their primitive State, aud begot Children who are now called Devils. He was follow'd notwithstanding by Irenaeus & Athenagoras, the most famous Writers of their Age; as also the stream of these that flourished in the succeeding Centuries, Irenaeus also with a great many others held, that the beatifick Vision is not enjoy'd untill the day of Judgement. Now beyond peradventure such Lead∣ers

as these, had the most part of the Churches at that time for their Fel∣lows and Followers in these Opinions.

§. 5. And seeing both such Pillars, and the rest that lean'd on them were ready to swerve in Matters of Speculation, or Opinion, they were no less capable of straying in things belonging to Practice; for there's no more security promised to the Church from the one than the other. Neither did the closs Vicinity to the times of the Apostles, preserve the Churches from evident Lapses of this nature. Was not the mixing of the Sacramental Wine with water, a matter of Practice, and altogether destitute of warrand from Scripture, in which we hear of nothing but the Fruit of the Vine drunken by Communicants. And yet Justin Martyrf 1.3 informs us that the mixing of the Sacramental Wine with wa∣ter was the Practice of his time.

§. 6. Another Instance of the most early Declension of the primitive Church in Matters of the same kind, viz. the external Rites, and Eccle∣siastick Ceremonies, was their observation of Easter; concerning which the Controversies first arose between Polycarpg 1.4, and the Churches of the East on the one hand, and Anicetus and the western Churches on the other. Polycarp alledg'd John the Evangelist, whose Disciple he had been, for the Author of his Opinion: but Anicetus and the Romans pre∣tended the Authority of Peter and Paul for the quite contrary Doctrine.

I have oftentimes much admir'd how either of these Parties, if we consider either Sincerity, or Vicinity to the Apostles, were liable to a∣ny Mistake of this kind; I believe scarce any Man now living shall be able to give any rational account of the Cause thereof; yet that one of them was mistaken, and that the Apostles did not keep up a perpetual observation of contrary Practices one to another, is to me, and to as many as truly acknowledge the Scriptures, among the things of high∣est certainty; and if either of them strayed, if sufficiently serves our turn, and is an ocular Demonstration that not only the clearest Lights, and nearest to the Apostles might relinguish some part of the Apostolick Purity, and fall into Rites and Customes never countenanced by the A∣postles; but also be accompanied by no small part of the Church there∣in.

§. 7. Yea I dare avouch and sustain, that both Parties equally swer∣ved from the Truth, seeing both of them had equal Means to have in∣form'd themselves, and were alike nigh to the Apostles; so that many were certainly alive of both Parties who had been conversant with them: hence there's no reason to believe either of the Parties, that ever the Apostle enjoined or allowed the observation of Anniversary, weekly or monthly times either in the same time with, or so near to the Judaical, (and then buried) Ceremonies; excepting the Sabbath only, the obser∣vation whereof had been expresly enjoin'd in a clear and Moral Precept. Neither, in this Assertion, shall we remain alone, but be supported by the suffrages, of the choicest of the Ancients. No less Irenaeus in Eusebius in∣timats, while he tells us,h 1.5 that this Difference did not arise first in his Age but long before in the time of their Fore-fathers, who (as is probable) being negli∣gent in their Government, delivered to their Posterity a Custome, which had on∣ly crept in thro' Simplicity and ••gnorance. And Socrates, a grave and solid Author, averrsi 1.6 that, neither more Ancient nor Later who inclined to fol∣low these Jewish Rites, had any cause to raise so great Contention. And that the keeping of Easter and such Holy Days were altogether Legal, the observati∣on whereof is not at all injoin'd in the Gospel: for (continues Socrates) they did not consider that, after the Jewish Religion was changed into that of the Chr∣stians, the strick observation of Moses Law, and the shaddows of future things were wholly abolished, which by a most sure proof may be thus evinced. For by no Law of Christ is it granted to Christians to observe Jewish Customes; yea the Apostle did expresly forbid it, not only rejecting Circumcision; but admonishing moreover that about Feast Days there should be no Contention, wherefore in writ∣ing to the Galatians he thus speaks, tell me ye who desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law? And after he had discoursed a little concern∣ing these Matters, he shews the Jews to be under Bondage, but that those who had followed Christ Jesus were called unto Liberty: he Exhorts furthermore that Days, Months or Years, in no ways be observed. Moreover, writing to the Collossians, he clearly asserts that such observations are but a meer Shaddow. Wherefore, saith the Apostle, let no Man judge you in Meat or Drink, or in respect of an Holy Day, of the New Moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shaddow of things to come. But in the Epistle to the Hebrews,

confirming the same matter he thus speaks. For the Priesthood being chang∣ed, there is also a necessity of the change of the Law: surely the Apostles and the Evangelists did never impose a Yoak upon these that became obedient to the Doctrine of Faith, but Easter and other days were left to the choise and e∣quity of those who in such days had received the Benefits: wherefore, seeing Men love Holy Days, because they bring them some respite of their Labours, divers Men in divers places following their particular Inclinations, did, accord∣ing to certain Custome, celebrate the memory of our Saviour's Passions: for nei∣ther our Saviour, nor his Apostles did by any Law ordain that it should be ob∣served; neither did the Gospels nor the Apostles threaten us with a Mulct, Pu∣nishment, or Curse, as the Law of Moses was wont to do to the Jews.

This and much more are we taught by Socrates; from all which it's most clear that in this Dispute concerning the Celebration of Easter, both Parties were equally culpable, as building upon a false Suppositi∣on, viz. that Christ and his Apostles had appointed some of these Days anniversarily to be kept, which yet never came into their mind And here 'tis most observable how, even in these ost early times they heap'd Falshood upon Falshood and supported one Forgery with another: the Fable of Peter's being at Rome and conjuring of Simon Magus there, was even then beginning to obtain; whereof the Romans made their Advan∣tage, and began to ascribe to him some Head-ship over the rest; and then averred that he had appointed them, not only to celebrate Easter, but also had determin'd the particular day of its Celebration, and in∣join'd them to keep it on the fifteenth and not on the fourteenth day of the Moneth as did the Eastern Churches: Now that they might be e∣ven with the Romans, and meet with them after their own Fashion and arts, the Asians invented the like Legends of the Apostle John, who, as they alledged, died at Ephesus and enjoyn'd them to keep Easter, but by no means on the fifteenth but on the fourteenth day of the Moneth, and the better to set off the Fable, Polycrates of Ephesus, in his Letter to Victor, harangues in the Praises of John, that thereby he might prefer him to Peter, and sticks not to assert that John was a Priest, and wore a High-Priests Golden Crown or Breast-platek 1.7 And yet, as is ac∣knowledged, John was not at all of the Priestly Race, far less was he the High-priest, to whom only of all the Priests, such a Crown

was peculiar. Therefore Valesius* 1.8 imagines that the first Christian Priests, as he speaks, wore such a Crown for a Sign of Honour in imitation of the Jews. As if the Christians of these times had ever dream'd of re∣taining the very marrow of Judaisme which was then abolished by the coming of Christ the substance. But this Antichristian dottage being so gross to be dejested by any real Protestant, the learned Le Moyn l 1.9 says that Polycrates spoke metaphorically of John's supereminent Know∣ledge and Gifts. But if this be true, with how great caution are these Ancients to be read, without which we shall be led into the belief of the greatest falshhoods. In the mean while I see no ground for this gloss in Polycrates his words, either as they are related by Eusebius or by Hie∣rome and Rufine. And Epiphaniusm 1.10 gives another such golden Crown to James, which is no less true than that he was Diocesan Bishop of Jerusalem. The same saith a Ms. Author, cited by Valesiusn 1.11 of Mark the Evan∣gelist, viz. that Mark was of the Priestly Race, and according to the Cu∣stome of the carnal Sacrifice, carried publickly a Golden Crown as the Badge of his Priestly Dignity. There is indeed nothing more certian than that the primitive Doctors who are ordinarly known by the name of Ortho∣dox Fathers, stuck with a due preciseness to the great and capital Do∣ctrines of the Christian Religion, without any swerving therefrom: but it's no less demonstrable, as we have now made evident, that the same Leaders, and these next the Apostles of greatest Antiquity, in many other things strayed exceedingly from the true Apostolick Sim∣plicity.

§. 8. Nothing was more frequent to them than, relying upon their Vicinity to the Apostles, to neglect a more accurate search of the Scrip∣tures, relate things otherways than they were transacted, alledge the Apostles for Practices to which they never gave Patrociny, which, be∣side what we have said already, may be sufficiently vouch'd from the Relation of Hegesippus in Eusebiuso 1.12 The Administration (saith he) was undertaken by James the Lord's Brother (together with the rest of the Apo∣stles) who from the time of Christ even unto our Age is sirnamed Just, for there

were many others of that Name beside, but as for him he was sanctifi'd from the Womb, neither did he ever drink Wine or strong Drink, and did altogether ab∣stain from the Flesh of any living Creature, neither ever came there a Razour on his Head, nor did he ever use to anoint or wash, and he only of all Men had free liberty to enter into the innermost Sanctuary of the Temple; for he was not wont to wear a woollen but a linnen Garment: he used to enter alone into the Temple, and with bended knees to pray for the People. And in the sequel of this discourse he tells us, that in the Martyrdome of this James, he was both thrown from the pinacle of the Temple, and also beaten to Death with a Fuller's Club: a certain Priest one of the Sons of Rechab mention'd in Jeremiah, exhorting the People to milder Counsels, and that all this was done in a tumultuous way, without the least appearance of any judicial Process against this Martyr. But this Relation of Hegesippus is not only contrare the Holy Scripture, where we are assured that the High-Priest (alone) entred into the Holy of Holies, and that the Rechabites were not of the Priestly Race, and to Josephus who informs usp 1.13 that James being sisted before the High-Priest's Council, and by a kind of judicial Process condemn'd, was stoned to Death: but also a most insulfe Rapsody, savouring more of a Legendary than a primitive Doctor. Yet the Author thereof lived contemporary with Justin Martyr, a few years only below the Apostles.

§. 9. But of this enough, and indeed with me it had been highly Sacrilegious to have said so much, but buried in a perpetual silence the Escapes of these whose memory is otherways to me more precious than the ashes of Mausolus to his Artemisia; and in fragrancy far surpassing the choicest of Oriental Spices; did not the injustice and importunity of these who prefer the Escapes, yea and Extravagancies of Men, and the blemishes of these great Lights, yet but terrene Lights, to the un∣spotted Beams of the Father of all Lights, compell me hereto. And herein I'm a true Son of the primitive Church, whose Doctors have taught me, that when the Dictats of God and these of Men, whosoever they be, interfer, and thro' humane Corruption are set in Competi∣tion, I ought to hold to the first; and in comparison herewith, despise the latter.

§. 10. Add hereto, that seeing Antichristianism the Mystery of Ini∣quity

was working even in the Apostles days, seeing this Defection was mysteriously promoted, and seeing, as experience hath proved, it ar∣rived at its hight, and Antichrist was brought to his Throne by the ex∣orbitant elevation of Clergy-men, it's much less to be wondred at, if the most frequent Escapes and Lapses of the Primitive, and otherways Orthodox, Fathers chanced to be of this nature, and tend to the establish∣ing an unwarrantable Supremacy and Dignity, which only these, who were of such Repute in the Church were capable to effect. And in all this I have said nothing but what has been asserted by the most approved Divines especially in their Writings against the Romanists. Yea the most judicious & learned Bishop Vsherq 1.14 is of the same mind: Altho' (saith he) it be undeniable that the first Successors of the Apostles excell'd in Piety and Holiness, it's certain notwithstanding that they neither attained to the Vertue nor simplicity of Doctrine that wee in their Ancestors and Teachers as is well observed by Nicephorus. And now judge if D. M's. Romish Querie, whether the Ecclesiastical Government could be changed from Parity to Prela∣cy (as is pretended) in those early Ages of the Church, especially since some Apostles and several Apostolical Men surviv'd the Period, sixt by some Pres∣byterians, (but no Presbyterian did ever yeeld that this Change was made during the Life of any of the Apostles) for the beginning of this (pre∣tended) Change; and if the Change was in it self impossible, then Prelacy must needs be acknowledged Apostolical. I therefore turn my Assertion in∣to a Conclusion, and from what is said with confidence Inferr, that the Antiquity even of the true Ignatius was not able to secure him from all Lapses and Mistakes, and that in his time some Churches, not only might, but actually were itching after several Novelties.

Notes

• d 1.1

  Lib. 3. Cap. 39. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• e 1.2

  Apolog. ad Senatum. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• f 1.3

  Apolog. ad Antoninum pium. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• g 1.4

  Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 4. Cap. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. Et Lib. 5. Cap. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c.
• h 1.5

  Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 5. Cap. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• i 1.6

  Socrates Lib. 5. Cap. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• k 1.7

  Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 5. Cap. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.8

  In notis ad Eusebii locum.
• l 1.9

  Varia sacra. Vol. 2. Page 30.
• m 1.10

  Haeresi 29. Nazara••rum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• n 1.11

  Ubi supra. Quem qui∣dem B. Marcum juxta ritum carnalis Sacrificii pontificalis apicis petalum &c.
• o 1.12

  Eu∣seb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 2. Cap. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• p 1.13

  Ant. judaie. Lib. 20. Cap. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪
• q 1.14

  De Christianarum Ecclesiarum successione et statu. Page 19. Etsi e∣nim qui proximè Apostolis successerunt, Pietate cum primis & Sanctitate excelluisse negari non potest: certum tamen est, neque eorum qui praecesserunt, virtutem assecutos, neque ita sim∣plicem, ut Magistri eorum, orationem consecutos esse, quemadmodum rectè à Nicephoro no∣tatum est.